Talk:Lavaca Bay/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I don't think that environmental groups did the clean up as stated in the last para of the lede, but rather Alcoa itself.

B. MoS compliance:
Refs 2, 13, 14 and 15 need place of publication. Refs 13, 14, 15 need last page relevant to the info cited. Title of Ref 14 needs to be capitalized like the other refs.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
I have no idea where Point Comfort, Indianola, etc. are. The watershed map is OK, but this article needs a map of the bay proper since that's the subject of the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thank you for the review. All of the above concerns have been addressed. I inserted a map that is showing up as a poor map that I uploaded on wikipedia a few months ago because I accidentally uploaded the nicer map under the same name at commons. I have requested that the file on wikipedia be deleted. Once this deletion occurs, a nice map will show up in its place.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see some of the failed towns shown on the maps as well, but that's for later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the towns are on the map here. The only exception is Linnville, which was in the same place as Port Lavaca.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]